Are the current producers ruining Home and Away?

[Blaxland 89]

I wish people would stop saying it has to move with the time, it can't go back etc, that's missing the point and not the issue. Nobody has says they want it to be the same as1988 or 1995. People want high standards of story telling, character lead plots, good continuity, diversity. Yes, all of which is more akin to an earlier home and away. However  these aspects are still highly relevant to most well respected dramas in 2016 and beyond. It'll never go out of fashion. That's what the complaint is. Storylines with no fall out or aftermath, characters like robots moving from one drama to the next,things going around in circles, people committing evil crimes and being peceived as good guys, character so unrelatable we cannot emphasis with them on any issue, older characters being ignored!!! 

[Bobby Forever Missed]

39 minutes ago, John said:

You may never know what you're missing  

Don't want to either the show is dead in my eyes

[harrietjames]

21 hours ago, Matt said:

As for being a family show...

Part of the controversy with the Charlie and Joey story line was because it was a "family show". A PG rating doesn't make it not a family show

 

11 hours ago, Matt said:

Most people do have an opinion on politics, but I hold the same belief - don't have an opinion, if you don't know all the facts. I find it incredibly annoying.

Opinions and facts don't necessarily go hand in hard

 

But back on topic - most of my recent favourite bits are the more mundane bits - like Roo and Matt's banter about pasta... Less favourites - yet another stabbing...

[Inactive.User]

Sorry if not on topic but I completely agree with earlier comments about Brax donating that money to help Pippa.

I think that honestly, the show is still a little down hill.

[dee123]

1 hour ago, harrietjames said:

Part of the controversy with the Charlie and Joey story line was because it was a "family show". A PG rating doesn't make it not a family show

That excuse always made me roll my eyes. Degrassi and Hollyoaks have always had gay characters and arguably they are for a younger audience then what H&A has.

[Blaxland 89]

2 hours ago, dee123 said:

That excuse always made me roll my eyes. Degrassi and Hollyoaks have always had gay characters and arguably they are for a younger audience then what H&A has.

Agree. 20 years ago by  byker grove had a man kiss another man. And that was certainly for younger viewers. I have have send before. The arts are wonderful at challenging people ignorance and if the case that the won't have this type of diversity because it's a family show saddens my greatly. Good on neighbours for not bowing down to bigotry 

Just now, Blaxland 89 said:

Agree. 20 years ago by  byker grove had a man kiss another man. And that was certainly for younger viewers. I have have send before. The arts are wonderful at challenging people ignorance and if the case that the won't have this type of diversity because it's a family show saddens my greatly. Good on neighbours for not bowing down to bigotry 

Sorry, horrendous typos

[Skylover]

10 hours ago, Blaxland 89 said:

I wish people would stop saying it has to move with the time, it can't go back etc, that's missing the point and not the issue. Nobody has says they want it to be the same as1988 or 1995. People want high standards of story telling, character lead plots, good continuity, diversity. Yes, all of which is more akin to an earlier home and away. However  these aspects are still highly relevant to most well respected dramas in 2016 and beyond. It'll never go out of fashion. That's what the complaint is. Storylines with no fall out or aftermath, characters like robots moving from one drama to the next,things going around in circles, people committing evil crimes and being peceived as good guys, character so unrelatable we cannot emphasis with them on any issue, older characters being ignored!!! 

I agree with this 100%.

The way people talk about 'it needs to keep up with the times and not be stuck in the past' - it's like people think we expect the 1995 version of the diner to return or that we want the show filmed in black and white or to go back to Standard Definition (I know H&A was never filmed in black and white but you get my point  ).

Something like the racism against Jack or Shannon's anorexia would never be dealt with properly in the modern show. Irene's alcoholism relapse was over in about 3 scenes and never mentioned again.

How about Irene has such a bad relapse that Fin comes to stay with her mother for a while? Why is the past such a terrible thing? It makes a mockery of the characters like Irene who don't have anything to do with their actual families but grab the nearest 20 year old floating nearby and shove them in her house for 3 years.

[Gerard]

There may be logistical reasons why they can't bring a past character back, not least because the actor is unavailable or does not want to return. But they can always ask. They can re-cast, like they did recently with Duncan, but I imagine they can't do that too often, and certain characters may be too iconic to re-cast. Can we imagine someone different playing Don Fisher or Sophie Simpson? They really had the prefect model with the fostering set-up, where teens could come and go naturally, so having "strangers" live with Irene is plausible. Yet we barely hear any mention of DOCS or "fostering" these days, people just seem to move in, and we're never sure if they're fostered or just lodging. "Fostering" is still a concept in 2016, I believe. Perhaps they could build further on Marilyn and John being full time foster carers, or Roo even.

The series can be modern with its production values, and dealing with contemporary issues, many of which were around 20 years ago too, and some relevant issues even pre-date the internet! If they explore issues in depth, rather than gloss over them in half a dozen episodes, there should be plenty of character-driven material, and no need for so many sensation plots involving crime and lives in the balance.

[Skylover]

43 minutes ago, Gerard said:

There may be logistical reasons why they can't bring a past character back, not least because the actor is unavailable or does not want to return. But they can always ask. They can re-cast, like they did recently with Duncan, but I imagine they can't do that too often, and certain characters may be too iconic to re-cast. Can we imagine someone different playing Don Fisher or Sophie Simpson? They really had the prefect model with the fostering set-up, where teens could come and go naturally, so having "strangers" live with Irene is plausible. Yet we barely hear any mention of DOCS or "fostering" these days, people just seem to move in, and we're never sure if they're fostered or just lodging. "Fostering" is still a concept in 2016, I believe. Perhaps they could build further on Marilyn and John being full time foster carers, or Roo even.

Yeah, some are too iconic to re-cast, probably Donald and Sophie.

I think they could get away with re-casting Irene's kids or Martha perhaps.

[harrietjames]

Many of the previous story lines would work in a current context. Even using the same scripts, just changing the names as appropriate.

Without mentioning specifics of the season finale, in a broad sense the event has happened previously, some of the fall out story lines could easily happen.